The sun. [volume] (Morris, Stevens County, Minn.) 1882-1895, 1887-12-08
PROHIBITION SUSTAINED.
The United States Supreme Court De.
cides the Kansas Prohibition Cases
in Favor Of the State.
An Exhaustive Disquisition Upon the
Right of a State to Enact and En-
force Prohibition Laws.

An Exhaustive DisquisitiOn Upon the
Right of State to Enact and En-
force Prohibition Laws.
WASHINGTON. Dec. ga very important
decision, and one likely to be far-reaching in
it's consequences, was rendered in the United
States supreme court to-day in the Kansai
prohibition cases of Mugler against the STATE
of Kansas and the State of Kansas against Zie
bold and others The judgment Of the cour,
was announced in long opinion by Justice
Harlan, who said:
The general question in each case is whether
the prohibition statutes of Kansas in conflict
with that clause of the fourteenth amendment,
which prUvides that mo state shall make or en-
force any law which shall abridge the privileges
or immunities OF citizens of the United States.
nor shall any state deprive any person Of life,
That legislation by state prohibiting the man.
ufacture within her limits Of Intoxicating
liquors. to be there sold or bartered for general
use as beverage, does not necessarily infringe
any right. privilege or immunity secured by the
constitution of the United States. is made clear
by the decisions Of the court rendered before
and since the adoption Of the fourteenth amend
ment. 1t is. however, contended that. although
the state may prohibit the manufacture Of in
toxicating liquors for sale or barter within her
limits for general use as beverage. no conven-
tion or legislature has the right under
our form OF government to prohibit
o article of Of food or OF drink not endsngeTine % or
affecting the rights of others. The argument
made in support OF the first branch Of this
proposition is: That in the implied compacts
between the state and the citizen, certain rights
are reserved by the latter which are guaranteed
by the constitutional provisions for the pro-
privation without due process Of law and with
which the state cannot interfere: that among
these rights lie that of manufacturing for ones
own use either food or drink; that, while ac-
cording to the doctrines of the commune the
state may control the tastes, appetites. habits
dress. food and drink Of the citizen, our system
of government. based upon the individuality
and Intelligence of the people. does not claim to
control him except as to his conduct to others.
leaving him the sole judge as to all that only
affects himself. 1t will be observed that the
proposition and the argument made in support
of it equally concede that the right to manu-
facture drink for ones personal use is subject to
the condition that such manufacture does not
endanger ur
AFFECT THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS.
If such manufacture does prejudicially affect
the rights and interests of the community, it
follows from the very premises stated by coun-
sci that society has the power to protect itself
by legislation against the injurious consequences
Of that business. As was said in Mum VS.. Hi
nois (94 U. S.. 124), while power does not exist
with the whole people to control rights that are
purely and exclusively private, government may
require each citizen SO to conduct himself and
SO to use his own property as not unnecessarily
to injure another. But by whom or by what au-
thOrity is 1t to be determined whether the man
ufacture Of particular articles of drink, either
for general use or for the personal use of the
maker, will injuriously affect the public? Power
to determine such questions so as to bind all
must exist somewhere, else society will be at the
mercy Of the few who, regarding only their own
appetites or passions. may be willing to imperi
the peace and security Of the many, provided
only they allowed to do as they please. Under
our system that power is lodged with the legis-
lative branch Of the government. 1t belongs to
that department to exert the police powers Of
the state. 1t must determine primarily what
measures are appropriate or needful for the pro-
| lection of the public morals. the public health
from these principles that every statute enacted
ostensibly for The promotion of these ends is to
be accepted as legitimate exertion ef the police
limits beyond which legislation cannot rightly
CO.. As the courts must obey the constitution
, rather than the law making department of the
| termine whether in any particular case these
limits have been passed. The courts are not
bound by mere forms nor are they to be misled
by mere pretenses They are at liberJy-indeed
are under q solemn 0uty-to look at the SUBJ
| stance of things whenever they enter upon the
inquiry. whether the legislature has transcended
the limits OF its authority: thor @ II, Therefore
tect the public health, the public morals or the
| public safety, has no real or substantial rela-
tions to those objects Of rights secured by the
fundamental law. it is the duty of the courts to
so adjudge and thereby give effect to the consti-
tuition. Keeping in view these principles as
governing the relations with each other of the
judicial and legislative departments of govern
ment, it is
DIFFICULT TO PERCEIVE ANY GROUND
for the judiciary to declare that the prohibition
by Kansas of the manufacture or sale within
her limits of intoxicating liquors for general use
end of protecting the community against the
evils which confessediv result from the excess
i've use Of ardent spirits. There is here no JUS
tification for holding that the state under the
guise of police regulations, is aiming to deprive
tbs citizen of his constitutional rights; for we
cannot shut out of view the fact, within the
knowledge of all. that the public health, the
public morals and the public safety may be en-
dangered by the general use of Intoxicating
drinks. Nor can we ignore the fact, established
by statistics accessible to every one, that the
disorder, pauperism and crime prevalent in the
country are in large measure directly traceable
to this evil. If, therefore, state deems the abb
within her limits of intoxicating liquors
for other than medical. scientific and
manufacturing purposes 30 be necessary to the
peace and dignity of society, the courts cannot,
the will Of the people as thus expressed by their
chosen representatives. 1t is a fundamental
the preservation Of public liberty. that one of
these departments of government shall not
| usurp powers committed by the constitution to
another department.. And so, If in the judg-
ment Of the legislature the manufacture Of in
toxicating liquors for the makers own use as a
beverage would tend TO cripple, if not to defeat
evils attending the excessive use Of such liquors.
it is not for the courts. upon their views as to
what is best and safest for the community, to
| disregard the legislative determination of that
question. So far from such q regulation being
inappropriate to the general end sought to be
| accomplished, it is easy to be seen that
tine esre hs S aas
OF Kansas might fail if the right
of each citizen to manufacture intoxicating
liquors for his own use as beverage were recog-
nized Such right does not inhere in citizen
ship. Nor can 1t be said that the government in
terferes with or impairs any ones constitutional
| rights Of liberty or Of property when it deter
mines that the manufacture and sale OF intoxt-
eating drinks for general or individual use as a
beverage are or may become hurtful to society
and to every member Of it, and is therefore a
business in which no one can lawfully engage.
This conclusion Is unavoidable unless the four
teenth amendment OF the constitution takes
from the states Of the Union those powers Of
police that were reserved at the time the orig.
inal constitution was adopted. But this court
has declared, upon full consideration lin Bar
bier vs.. Connolly, 113 U. s., 81 that the four
teenth amendment had no such effect.
THE PROPERTY OBJECTION.
With reference to the assertion that the
prohibition OF the manufacture and sale OF
liquor deprives liquor dealers Of their prop
erty without due process Of law, the court
says:
All property under our form Of government is
subject to the obligation that 1t shall not be
used SO as to injuriously affect .he rights of the
community and thereby become q nuisance.
The State Of Kansas had right to prohibit the
liquor traffic 1t did not thereby take away the
property OF the brewers. 1t simply abated q
nuisance. The property is not taken away from
| It's owners They are only prohibited from using
1t for specific purpose, which the legislature de-
clared to be injurious to the community. For
the reasons stated, we are Of the opinion that
Mugler, the plaintiff In error. has not been de-
MED by the judgments Of the supreme court Of
Kansas any right. privilege or immunity Sc
cured to him by the constitution Of the United
States. and its JUDGMENT in each case is accord
| inRly affirmed We are also Of the opinion that
| the circuit court Of the United States erred In
dismissing the bill Of the state in her suit
against Ziebold and Hagelin. The decree In
| that case is reversed and the cause remanded,
with directions to enter decree granting to the
state such relief as the act Of March z, 1885.
l aukhorizna